I'm curious what manuals you are refering to? Lyman data using a 147 grain TMJ bullet. COAL 1.115", starting load 3.2 grains, max load 3.6 grains. Using TiteGroup powder. The 1.169" you are refering to is maximum COAL.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
147gr 9mm question
- Thread starter Bflo
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
I'm curious what manuals you are refering to? Lyman data using a 147 grain TMJ bullet. COAL 1.115", starting load 3.2 grains, max load 3.6 grains. Using TiteGroup powder. The 1.169" you are refering to is maximum COAL.
You bring up another good point: The shape and design of the bullet also makes a difference. The hollow-point design of the XTP has an entirely different profile than a FMJ bullet of the same weight. This has a direct impact on what OAL it should be loaded to.
It is possible to have a powder compressed, with zero space between it and the bullet, without creating excessive pressure. It is also possible to seat the bullet out too far, such that it is already into the rifling, which CAN create excessive pressure. There are many variables, which is why quite a few folks advise reloaders to stick with what the load books say, particularly with smaller-capacity, high pressure pistol rounds.
Would just like to add to that... Not only stick to published OAL data for the profile, but be aware not all chambers are created equal. If the ammo you load is to function in multiple guns, know your barrels/chambers also...
I load for multiple 9mm's for example... Once I thought I'd try Missouri's 124 gr smallball for just cheap target shooting... It has a rather blunt ogive.. It's profile is considerbly different than your standard 124 gr RN. Well, it was fine in several different make firearms at published data, but would require much deeper seating for the barrels out of an XD and a KKM aftermarket barrel.
Wow, that's quite a parallel...I also load for several 9mm's. A carbine and three pistols, and I shoot round-nose 124's out of all of them. The carbine is rated for +P, but I make sure that each round I load is effective and safe to use in all of them. One of the main points I thought should be made in this thread is that you're best off loading to what the manual recommends, presuming your action works well at that length, because that will typically keep pressures in a safe range. Seating bullets too deep is the greater concern with 9mm rounds.
What 124 gr RN you referring too ? What I call the 124 NATO style profile or what I actually was using ( Missouri cast 124 small ball RN) ? The MSB has a much more blount profile radius. I can shoot the standard NATO style RN in everything I own at the published length data, including the (2) barrels I mentioned earlier.
I'm shooting the Hornady bulk 124gr FMJ RN Encapsulated bullet. I buy them in the 250 count bags from Midsouth. They function well in all four of our 9mm's at 1.115". (Two belong to my son) I shoot a lot of Hornady and Nosler bullets, along with quite a few Sierras. I noticed that Nosler doesn't make a 147 grain bullet in 9mm. I found that interesting. Personally, I have always preferred 124 grains from a 9mm...if I need more power than that, I'll just grab a gun with a bigger case to drive bigger bullets.
I'm shooting the Hornady bulk 124gr FMJ RN Encapsulated bullet. I buy them in the 250 count bags from Midsouth. They function well in all four of our 9mm's at 1.115". (Two belong to my son) I shoot a lot of Hornady and Nosler bullets, along with quite a few Sierras. I noticed that Nosler doesn't make a 147 grain bullet in 9mm. I found that interesting. Personally, I have always preferred 124 grains from a 9mm...if I need more power than that, I'll just grab a gun with a bigger case to drive bigger bullets.
I know the bullet, but never tried it. I used to buy the Hornady 124gr FMJ-FP instead by the case... 2900 to the case if I remember right. Unlike the RN, its profile allows for the use in .357 sig... I used to buy these and use em in both 9mm and .357 before the prices went thru the roof... Now days, they are reserved for .357 use only... Plated or cast for the 9mm's....
1) There is no need for "air space" in a case.
2) Compressed charges are not inherently dangerous.
3) COL depends on the cylinder/magazine, feed ramp, and barrel chamber. Your COL is not MY COL. The manual's COL is no more than a minimum COL for use of the data using their firearm and components. The manual is a guideline only.
4) Handloaders did quite well for decades without COL being referenced in manuals
5) The idea of adjusting COL for pressure is not one I will endorse
6) The ONLY reason for someone to request a COL is because they DO NOT plan to work up the load from the starting load--which is NOT a recommended technique.
2) Compressed charges are not inherently dangerous.
3) COL depends on the cylinder/magazine, feed ramp, and barrel chamber. Your COL is not MY COL. The manual's COL is no more than a minimum COL for use of the data using their firearm and components. The manual is a guideline only.
4) Handloaders did quite well for decades without COL being referenced in manuals
5) The idea of adjusting COL for pressure is not one I will endorse
6) The ONLY reason for someone to request a COL is because they DO NOT plan to work up the load from the starting load--which is NOT a recommended technique.
I respectfully disagree, particularly with regard to small-capacity, high-pressure loads where even a slight decrease in cartridge OAL can result in a significant, and dangerous, spike in pressure. For pistol cartridges, OAL is a critical component of how much pressure is created and the "guidelines" set in the reloading manual should be adhered to.
No one has suggested adjusting COL for pressure, but if you're going to ignore the direct impact of seating depth on pressure levels, you do so at your own risk.
Lyman's 49th states very clearly: "With any handgun cartridge, it is important not to seat bullets to a shorter length than specified in the data. This is especially important with 9mm loads. Pressures can be raised dramatically with deep seating."
Is there something about your comments that I'm not understanding? I could post some numbers from QuickLoad to illustrate the impact that seating a bullet just a little deeper can have on pressures, if you like?
I agree that it isn't recommend, but I still still contend that any load is a product of the powder, primer, charge, bullet type, weight, and COAL. In many handgun applications, the COAL makes the difference between a safe load and marginally or totally unsafe load. It should be included in any recommendation.
If I told someone what my charge weight of Titegroup was in 40 without the COAL, they'd have a real problem in gun with an unsupported chamber. The reason I don't (on this forum) is because it is specific to my type of barrel and firearm. And, I know it's safe because (1) I look for pressure signs (there are none because the COAL I use drops the pressure) and (2) it's measured over a chronograph.
If the bullet sets back enough, it decreases the available volume inside the case, and can result in a dangerous over-pressure condition when you fire the round. Reason why it's wise to keep an eye on your carry ammo. If you unload and chamber the same round often. It also applies to reloading when seting your COAL. If the bullet is seated to deep, it can cause over preassure.
"Lyman's 49th states very clearly: "With any handgun cartridge, it is important not to seat bullets to a shorter length than specified in the data. This is especially important with 9mm loads. Pressures can be raised dramatically with deep seating.""
"I agree that it isn't recommend, but I still still contend that any load is a product of the powder, primer, charge, bullet type, weight, and COAL. In many handgun applications, the COAL makes the difference between a safe load and marginally or totally unsafe load. It should be included in any recommendation."
There is a lack of reading comprehension here.
For DECADES, reloading manuals made no reference to COL. Why? Because is depends on YOUR gun. My COL may not work in YOUR gun.
This is why there are starting loads.
Back in the day, EVERY reloader knew that they had to determine the COL that was best for a given bullet and gun.
EVERYBODY knew to start with the lowest starting load they could find in several cross-referenced manuals and the longest COL.
From there, they worked down to the COL that worked best for a given bullet in their gun.
They didn't ask for other's COL since it had very little to do with their gun.
Again, the ONLY rational reason to ask for a specific load's COL is because you do not plan to work up the load yourself and just want to be handed "the perfect load."
In ALL cases, any COL in a manual is the shortest COL that the load data applied to.
Too many, now, simply use that COL, even with different bullets and appear to have no idea how to determine the best COL for their gun and load.
I have even read some handloaders who are convinced that they must EXACTLY load per the manual for their gun--as though the manual is not simply a guideline for intelligent people to use, but a BIBLE of what must be done.
I am sorry, but he who asks for a COL is not a handloader, but a person who is trying to eliminate the challenge and benefits of reloading.
They are also the same who will simply use a load they read about and NOT work up the load.
Read what I wrote and you will see that your "disagreement" doesn't disagree with anything I wrote, but you assumed it to mean.
If have a Browning HP, bought in 1974, that requires a shorter COL than the manuals specify. This was never a problem for me since I first determined the COL required for each bullet to feed and chamber and then I started with the starting load and worked up.
Every round checked for bullet set-back.
This gun has shot a LOT of 0.357-0.359" bullets, since the groove diameter is about 0.3585", and never had any problem because I NEVER assumed a given load would work but rather worked up the load.
Finally, any one who takes your load, even with a COL, and loads it without working up is an idiot who will destroy handloading as an activity that does not currently require government training and approval.
If YOU think you need a COL to work up a load, then, again, you are not really a handloader since you are not showing the knowledge required that is covered in most any good loading manual.
You always start at least 10% below MAX load and, if you are blindly copying someone else's load, you had better:
1) check your manuals for a similar load to be sure it is sensible/safe
2) reduce at least 5% (unless it is a max load) and work up any way.
Now, re-read item 3) and 6) and tell me where I said anything about using a short COL without working the load up from a safe, light, starting load?
"I agree that it isn't recommend, but I still still contend that any load is a product of the powder, primer, charge, bullet type, weight, and COAL. In many handgun applications, the COAL makes the difference between a safe load and marginally or totally unsafe load. It should be included in any recommendation."
There is a lack of reading comprehension here.
For DECADES, reloading manuals made no reference to COL. Why? Because is depends on YOUR gun. My COL may not work in YOUR gun.
This is why there are starting loads.
Back in the day, EVERY reloader knew that they had to determine the COL that was best for a given bullet and gun.
EVERYBODY knew to start with the lowest starting load they could find in several cross-referenced manuals and the longest COL.
From there, they worked down to the COL that worked best for a given bullet in their gun.
They didn't ask for other's COL since it had very little to do with their gun.
Again, the ONLY rational reason to ask for a specific load's COL is because you do not plan to work up the load yourself and just want to be handed "the perfect load."
In ALL cases, any COL in a manual is the shortest COL that the load data applied to.
Too many, now, simply use that COL, even with different bullets and appear to have no idea how to determine the best COL for their gun and load.
I have even read some handloaders who are convinced that they must EXACTLY load per the manual for their gun--as though the manual is not simply a guideline for intelligent people to use, but a BIBLE of what must be done.
I am sorry, but he who asks for a COL is not a handloader, but a person who is trying to eliminate the challenge and benefits of reloading.
They are also the same who will simply use a load they read about and NOT work up the load.
Read what I wrote and you will see that your "disagreement" doesn't disagree with anything I wrote, but you assumed it to mean.
If have a Browning HP, bought in 1974, that requires a shorter COL than the manuals specify. This was never a problem for me since I first determined the COL required for each bullet to feed and chamber and then I started with the starting load and worked up.
Every round checked for bullet set-back.
This gun has shot a LOT of 0.357-0.359" bullets, since the groove diameter is about 0.3585", and never had any problem because I NEVER assumed a given load would work but rather worked up the load.
Finally, any one who takes your load, even with a COL, and loads it without working up is an idiot who will destroy handloading as an activity that does not currently require government training and approval.
If YOU think you need a COL to work up a load, then, again, you are not really a handloader since you are not showing the knowledge required that is covered in most any good loading manual.
You always start at least 10% below MAX load and, if you are blindly copying someone else's load, you had better:
1) check your manuals for a similar load to be sure it is sensible/safe
2) reduce at least 5% (unless it is a max load) and work up any way.
Now, re-read item 3) and 6) and tell me where I said anything about using a short COL without working the load up from a safe, light, starting load?
I don't understand what the fuss is about the request for a COL to be listed with the other data. And, I read the post above and I still don't get it. If one wants to assume just by asking the question that I'm a lazy loader, then that is a bigger leap than Evel Knievel tried to clear at the Grand Canyon.
COL is important and should be supplied with any other data.
COL is important and should be supplied with any other data.
Noylj,
Your arguments carry no more water here than they do over at Shooters Forum. I provided documentation from one of the most respected reloading manuals around, explaining very clearly WHY cartridge OAL is important. I have also touched on the nature of propellants and how pressure/volume impacts their burn characteristics. All you've done, thus far, is postulate and theorize. Show us some proof of what you are contending.
You continue to insist that reloading manuals did not list OAL in the past. I've got manuals from the early 70's, nearly 40 years ago, and they list the nominal cartridge OAL, if nothing else. Most of what you're spouting off about can be said of bottle-necked rifle cartridges with some applicability, but for straight-walled, high-pressure pistol rounds...you're just plain wrong.
Provide some documentation from a reputable source to back up your assertions. While you're at it, PLEASE explain to the forum how having more information about a given load can possibly be a bad thing, or why YOU misconstrue that as being "lazy". The OAL for a given cartridge contributes greatly to accuracy, in many rounds. Could it possibly be folks would ask for that OAL number because they, too, would like to shoot an accurate load?
If you framed your arguments a little better, as a supplemental logic to published and documented OAL measurements, that would make sense. I mean, what you're saying is good advice, but attempting to quash dissemination of useful information to support your notion is a classic example of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Explain to me how your exhortation to start low and work up is mutually exclusive of the advice from every loading manual out there, to start with a given OAL...
Your arguments carry no more water here than they do over at Shooters Forum. I provided documentation from one of the most respected reloading manuals around, explaining very clearly WHY cartridge OAL is important. I have also touched on the nature of propellants and how pressure/volume impacts their burn characteristics. All you've done, thus far, is postulate and theorize. Show us some proof of what you are contending.
You continue to insist that reloading manuals did not list OAL in the past. I've got manuals from the early 70's, nearly 40 years ago, and they list the nominal cartridge OAL, if nothing else. Most of what you're spouting off about can be said of bottle-necked rifle cartridges with some applicability, but for straight-walled, high-pressure pistol rounds...you're just plain wrong.
Provide some documentation from a reputable source to back up your assertions. While you're at it, PLEASE explain to the forum how having more information about a given load can possibly be a bad thing, or why YOU misconstrue that as being "lazy". The OAL for a given cartridge contributes greatly to accuracy, in many rounds. Could it possibly be folks would ask for that OAL number because they, too, would like to shoot an accurate load?
If you framed your arguments a little better, as a supplemental logic to published and documented OAL measurements, that would make sense. I mean, what you're saying is good advice, but attempting to quash dissemination of useful information to support your notion is a classic example of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Explain to me how your exhortation to start low and work up is mutually exclusive of the advice from every loading manual out there, to start with a given OAL...
Last edited:
Here is what I say; Take Noylj, give him a Glock and a few rounds. Make some up with xxxgr of powder with a longer OAL, then, make some up with the same xxxgr of the same powder and seat the bullets .100" deeper, tell him to shoot them and walk away. Oh, you may want to be ready with your cell phone 'cause SOMEONE is going to have to dial 911 for him. He will be losing the use of a few digits util he heals! 
Although, one older manual had it right, Philip Sharpe's. He wasn't so concerned about OAL but rather "seating depth". There is a difference. OAL affects seating depth but there are times when the OAL can be shorter because of bullet shape and still not have a dangerous seating depth.
Case capacity or the reduction thereof has the biggest affect on handgun ammo pressures.
In the following picture, if seated to the same OAL with the same powder type and charge weight, which one is going to generate more pressure? It may not be into the dangerous realm, but it will be different.
This is a drawing I made up to illustrate the difference.
Had to edit it. Was driving me crazy that I let that one get out without being correct! UUUGGGGHHHH!
Although, one older manual had it right, Philip Sharpe's. He wasn't so concerned about OAL but rather "seating depth". There is a difference. OAL affects seating depth but there are times when the OAL can be shorter because of bullet shape and still not have a dangerous seating depth.
Case capacity or the reduction thereof has the biggest affect on handgun ammo pressures.
In the following picture, if seated to the same OAL with the same powder type and charge weight, which one is going to generate more pressure? It may not be into the dangerous realm, but it will be different.
This is a drawing I made up to illustrate the difference.
Had to edit it. Was driving me crazy that I let that one get out without being correct! UUUGGGGHHHH!
Last edited:
Noylj,
I provided documentation from one of the most respected reloading manuals around, explaining very clearly WHY cartridge OAL is important.ice from every loading manual out there, to start with a given OAL...
I've heard some describe worries about either bullet set back /deep seating exaggerated and fueled partly my internet " myth ".
Is your source there prior to the invention of the internet ? ( Sorry, can't get purple to work this morning)...
Here's a source I have that I KNOW is prior to Al Gore's invention....
Not in purple and I will change a word or two due to copy right rules of the forum...
" Loads that produced 28,000 cup soared to 62,000 when bullets were seated .030 deeper." This can be found in Speer # 10. On page 349, under, you got it, 9mm !
Did anyone read what I've quoted here from noylj? It sounds like people are disagreeing just to disagree and argue.
Ignoring the reason "because the manuals say so" why would you want to start with anything other than the longest COAL that works correctly in your equipment? NoylJ is simply stating the safest way to work up a load. ie: start long with low powder then work up. What is the benefit of having shorter cartridges?
JD, please highlight the portion of any of Noylj's comments where he says to, "start long" and work up. Show us where he said to go with the longest OAL that will work in a given gun and develop the load from there. I have read each of his posts and nowhere has he given such advice. He'd be refuting his own claims, if he did so.
As long as you're looking for facts not in evidence, please find any documentation to refute the assertions of professional ballisticians and their OAL recommendations. The salient point to gather from all of this, and I sincerely hope you are able to do so, is that seating depth (OAL, if you will) has a direct and profound effect on the pressure generated by a given load recipe. If you cannot agree to that stipulation, there is no basis for meaningful discussion. This is a basic and fundamental principle of reloading that you cannot ignore w/o consequence. Again, if you can find one shred of proof to dispute that assertion, we're all ears.
As long as you're looking for facts not in evidence, please find any documentation to refute the assertions of professional ballisticians and their OAL recommendations. The salient point to gather from all of this, and I sincerely hope you are able to do so, is that seating depth (OAL, if you will) has a direct and profound effect on the pressure generated by a given load recipe. If you cannot agree to that stipulation, there is no basis for meaningful discussion. This is a basic and fundamental principle of reloading that you cannot ignore w/o consequence. Again, if you can find one shred of proof to dispute that assertion, we're all ears.
Here is what I say; Take Noylj, give him a Glock and a few rounds. Make some up with xxxgr of powder with a longer OAL, then, make some up with the same xxxgr of the same powder and seat the bullets .100" deeper, tell him to shoot them and walk away. Oh, you may want to be ready with your cell phone 'cause SOMEONE is going to have to dial 911 for him. He will be losing the use of a few digits util he heals!
Although, one older manual had it right, Philip Sharpe's. He wasn't so concerned about OAL but rather "seating depth". There is a difference. OAL affects seating depth but there are times when the OAL can be shorter because of bullet shape and still not have a dangerous seating depth.
Case capacity or the reduction thereof has the biggest affect on handgun ammo pressures.
In the following picture, if seated to the same OAL with the same powder type and charge weight, which one is going to generate more pressure? It may not be into the dangerous realm, but it will be different.
This is a drawing I made up to illustrate the difference.
Had to edit it. Was driving me crazy that I let that one get out without being correct! UUUGGGGHHHH!
OAL vs seating depth depends on the situation. If you are increasing the volume of powder being used, working up a load, then you need to keep an eye on your seating depth. If you are indeed using the same bullet brand, weight, and style. This will have an effect on your OAL as well. Obviously, the deeper you seat your bullet, the shorter your OAL will be. If you are using different style of bullets of the same weight, as your illustration shows. You can not assume that you can seat to the same depth and be safe. Obviously, the bullet on the right is seated to deep. Again though, it will affect your OAL if seated to a safe depth.
Site Supporter
Staff online
-
Cameramonkeywww.thechosen.tv -
d.kaufmanStill Here
Members online
- DoggyDaddy
- ISO400
- maxipum
- JudgeJudy
- KMaC
- Greg1
- AllenM
- rhamersley
- Cameramonkey
- dvd1955
- Super Bee
- Mauser Fanatic
- Zdub720
- brizzad
- slims2002
- d.kaufman
- wingrider1800
- JdsBiff
- Alamo
- Bennettjh
- jabean
- Destro
- NINJA
- WhitleyStu
- Noble Sniper
- red_zr24x4
- morve80
- MrSmitty
- Vanguard.45
- 3GLewie
- BeDome
- SOUP
- joe138
- Scott58
- rbhargan
- Meatstick
- tscherry70
- Ark
- dsol
- bullet
- indyjohn
- drgnrobo
- Malware
- cedarhillfarms11
- DDadams
- gregkl
- usmcdjb
- INDY45
- Calvin
- Wolfhound
